4.5 Article

An alternative approach for estimating stature from long bones that is not population- or group-specific

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 259, 期 -, 页码 59-68

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.12.011

关键词

Forensic Anthropology; Stature equations; Non-specific; Terry Collection; Lisbon Collection

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  2. University of Windsor
  3. Simon Fraser University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An accurate and precise estimate of stature can be very useful in the analysis of human remains in forensic cases. A problem with many stature estimation methods is that an unknown individual must first be assigned to a specific group before a method can be applied. Group membership has been defined by sex, age, year of birth, race, ancestry, continental origin, nationality or a combination of these criteria. Univariate and multivariate sex-specific and generic equations are presented here that do not require an unknown individual to be assigned to a group before stature is estimated. The equations were developed using linear regression with a sample (n = 244) from the Terry Collection and tested using independent samples from the Forensic Anthropology Databank (n = 136) and the Lisbon Collection (n = 85). Tests with these independent samples show that (1) the femur provides the best univariate results; (2) the best multivariate equation includes the humerus, femur and tibia lengths; (3) a generic equation that does not require an unknown to first be assigned to a given category provides the best results most often; (4) a population-specific equation does not provide better results for estimating stature; (5) sex-specific equations can provide slightly better results in some cases; however, estimating the wrong sex can have a negative impact on precision and accuracy. With these equations, stature can be estimated independently of age at death, sex or group membership. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据